In the 12-year period of 2005 through 2016, canines killed 392 Americans. Pit bulls contributed to 65% (254) of these deaths. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers contributed to 76% of the total recorded deaths. | More »

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Fight Breaks Out
Dallas, TX - Shortly after a dog dream park opened in Dallas, the owners of the 50,000-square-foot park banned pit bulls. Co-owner, Cody Acree, cited the reason as "insurance." He also said that on the park's opening day, two pit bulls got in a fight. One of the pit bulls bit a person trying to break it up (apparently neither pit bull owner had a break stick). The incident also led to a "temperament observation" period, proof of shots and proof of breed validation prior to park entry.

Pit bulls are genetically "dog-aggressive" and stand a high risk of attacking and injuring other dogs. For this reason and important others, insurance companies often refuse to cover them in doggie day care and overnight facilities. Last year, PetSmart banned pit bulls from their PetsHotel Doggie Day Camp program. PetsHotel facilities are located in each U.S. state and across Canada. The day camp prohibits all dogs in the "bully breed" classification and wolf-hybrids.

Due to liability and dog-aggression, it is conceivable that the vast majority of doggie day camps prohibit pit bulls.

In past blog posts, DogsBite.org has noted that Barking Hound Village boarding and day care services (Dallas and Austin locations) also prohibit pit bulls. According to their website: "Due to the communal nature of our playgroups/boarding we cannot accept pitbulls or any mixed pitbull breeds." DogBoy's Dog Ranch of Austin does as well: "...after recent injuries inflicted by this breed [pit bulls and their mixes], we are no longer able to accommodate them for boarding or day care."

Post a Comment

4 comments:

Anonymous | 3/19/2009 4:31 AM | FlagNothing says "I'm a self-absorbed azzhole" like a so called dog lover taking a dog bred for killing other dogs to a dog park!

Of course the Pit lover websites practically beg them not to take them there.... Not because they believe mauling and killing other people's dogs is wrong, but because of the bad PR fallout.

One day, they might realize that breeding for dog aggression is one nasty, grotesque and unsafe practice.

Anonymous | 3/19/2009 5:41 AM | FlagWhat we have here is a complete lack of respect for the Dogmen of Stafford England!

Pit owners know they shouldn't take this fighting breed to dog parks. However, much like petulant children, they just cant stand being told that they can't.

A little more self-policing from the Pit Bull community please! BSL could go away if they bred safer dogs and contained them better.

In lieu of self-policing: BAN EARLY AND BAN OFTEN!

FoolMeOnce | 3/19/2009 1:21 PM | FlagSomething doesn't smell right -- in the article, the owner's of Unleashed claim that it was their insurance company that said no pits, and it was not their choice. However, they let a pit in anyway???? and then the pit started a fight. (no surprise there.) My hunch is that they chose not to allow pits after the fight, but don't want to make anybody mad with their choice, so are putting it on the insurance company. Maybe they were going to allow pits anyway, but quickly realized that pits are not allowed under their insurance policy FOR A REASON!. Whatever, too bad they wouldn't take ownership of not allowing pits, and put the onus on the insurance company.

(Did you notice the Lone Star Pit Bull Club member in one of those articles that commmented about how she and her fellow pit breeders and dog fighters are trying to change the law so insurance companies have to cover pit bulls (and of course insurance will then become unaffordable for most people as rates rockets and claims go through the roof because of more attacks)